Deserving and undeserving poor

[Naci Sey]

In the Quebec gets lion's share of Canada Day, the discussion looked to be getting derailed when I introduced suggestions on how else the $6.75 million might be spent; so I've started this thread.

The most recent comments in that thread were these:

'Undeserving'? Forty percent of those living below the poverty line - including people who are homeless - work, most at two and three jobs, at minimum and sub-minimum wages. And the percentage of low-income workers has been climbing.

I don't know where your stats are coming from, but I'd suggest that if one were to parse them out, one would find a couple of inconvenient facts:

1 You're using one of the more far-fetched "poverty lines" available out there. There are dozens of alternative formulations for where the "poverty line" is; the silliest one was the NDP's notion in 1993 that anything below $35,000 per annum was below the line. By now this same formulation probably has $50,000 as the poverty line.

I'm using Statistics Canada's after-tax Low Income Cut Offs, the most common measure used by researchers and government. The Market Basket Measure results in similar numbers, while the Low Income Measure - typically used for international comparisons - I find too generous.

2 The low-end jobs are overwhelmingly taken by young people as a stop on the way to better jobs. Or in some cases immigrants, as a matter of choice that they can always remedy by going back home and making even less.

Where do you get this from?

3 Throwing money at people is not going to help them better themselves or their job situation. Making poverty comfortable is going to have precisely the opposite effect.

And studies supporting this view are? I ask because decades of research suggests that in capitalist market-driven societies, corrections must be made to avoid a growing prosperity gap.

[Riverwind]

I'm using Statistics Canada's after-tax Low Income Cut Offs, the most common measure used by researchers and government.

LICO is perhaps the most useless measures since it is a relative measure. Here is what StatsCan says about the LICO:

Since their initial publication, Statistics Canada has clearly and consistently emphasized that the LICOs are not measures of poverty. Rather, LICOs reflect a consistent and well-defined methodology that identifies those who are substantially worse off than average. These measures have enabled Statistics Canada to report important trends, such as the changing composition of those below the LICOs over time.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/r...ary/fam019a.cfm

To put it another way: it is impossible to eliminate poverty as calculated by the 'LICO' because no matter what you do a certain percentage of the population will always be worse off than the average.

[Naci Sey]

LICO is perhaps the most useless measures since it is a relative measure.... To put it another way: it is impossible to eliminate poverty as calculated by the 'LICO' because no matter what you do a certain percentage of the population will always be worse off than the average.

So use the MBM instead. For the purposes of this topic, it doesn't matter which measure one uses. As I wrote previously, the MBM, which measures actual costs and is an absolute measure, compares similarly to the after-tax LICO tables.

Here's a paper, done for StatsCan, about the different measures: Low Income Measurement in Canada (PDF).

As to the LICOs being "useless" because they are a relative measure, there is a place for such measures, as borne out by the quote from StatsCan you used; researchers have consistently turned to the LICOs in their work. Have they all been wrong to do so? One case in which using the LICOs makes sense is when measuring how people in this country are doing relative to one another.

[ScottSA]

As to the LICOs being "useless" because they are a relative measure, there is a place for such measures, as borne out by the quote from StatsCan you used; researchers have consistently turned to the LICOs in their work. Have they all been wrong to do so? One case in which using the LICOs makes sense is when measuring how people in this country are doing relative to one another.

True poverty is an absolute measurement, not a relative measurement. One cannot viably claim that a certain segment of the Saudi citizenry is "poor," for example, by virtue of the fact that they have only two cars as compared to the upper crust which has seven.

Only through socialist eyes does poverty become a relative thing. Only when one posits economic egalitarianism as the ideal does it even make sense to measure relative distance between economic poles.

[Riverwind]

Have they all been wrong to do so?

The quote I provided indicated that such measures are used to report trends 'such as the changing composition of those below the LICOs over time'. IOW - LICOs are NOT a measure of poverty in society.

Furthermore, the MSM is also deceptive because (from your link):

It attempts to identify a standard of living lying between the poles of subsistence and social inclusion. It goes beyond a subsistence standard of living, allowing for the acquisition of resources necessary for taking part in the life of the community.

Including the 'acquisition of resources necessary for taking part in the life of the community' turns the MBM into a useless relative measure as well because the the amount of 'resources necessary for taking part in the life of the community' depends entirely on the average wealth of the community. For example, most children in a well off community may participate in numereous extra curricular activities such as hockey. According to the MBM children with adequate housing and nutrious food would still be in 'poverty' if they could not afford the cost of the hockey lessons and equipment.

[margrace]

These are straw arguments. There are a lot of poor people in this country no matter how you measure them. Seniors living on $12,000 a year are an example. Our reeve does the income taxe for seniors in our area through a program of the Tax people. She was really shocked at the number of people living on $12,000 a year in our area.

I does not matter what formula you use, you cannot argue away the poverty. What causes it are what we should be discussing not how you can make these people the but of your need to have someone to look down on. It is disgusting in a country such as ours that people are so greedy and blame the poor people because it costs them taxes. Tough.

[B. Max]

I does not matter what formula you use, you cannot argue away the poverty. What causes it are what we should be discussing not how you can make these people the but of your need to have someone to look down on. It is disgusting in a country such as ours that people are so greedy and blame the poor people because it costs them taxes. Tough.

It was likely taxes that made them poor.

[Riverwind]

Our reeve does the income taxe for seniors in our area through a program of the Tax people. She was really shocked at the number of people living on $12,000 a year in our area.

A single senior living in a house with no mortgage would be able to get by on $12K/year. They would likely have to go without many things (such as cable tv) which most other people have but they would not be destitute.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's something that I posted a while back relating to Poverty Statistics - I've edited it a bit:

The Toronto Star and their OCAP compatriots seem to do more harm than good for people who are truly in need. Their constant exaggerations only serve to turn people off. Yes, we have an issue and we will always have an issue with people who are less fortunate than others - but let's all deal with the facts so we can collectively provide the needy with a hand-up and for those who truly cannot fend for themselves - a hand-out. As an example, the Star claims that 1 of every 6 people live in Poverty. Their source, as usual, is a selective use of Stats Canada. In fact, if we use the Stats Can LICO (dubious, at best) and use the Before Tax income, you indeed come to somewhere in the area of 1 in 6.

Link: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil41a.htm

But now let's look at After Tax Income and you'll find that the number is actually 1 in 9. I think we could all agree that for an honest measurement of financial ability, After Tax is a better choice that Before Tax.

Link: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil19a.htm

This is really only one example of the selective use of statistics. Another major area of misinformation is the use of "young workers" in any Poverty measurement. I'm not sure what age should be the starting point but surely, a significant number of workers that are age 18-21 are just starting out in the workplace and it will take some time for their earning power to gain traction. These statistics even go so far as to count people who are under 18. Most of these are not "poor" - they are, like all of us at one time. simply starting out in life and paying their dues - many are still living at home with parents.

Seniors (over 65) are also a "special" category. Thier requirements are different - and quite reduced. My own mother is beneath the LICO, yet she does very well and would never even consider her situation to be challenging.

So what is the right number - 1 in 10? 1 in 15? I don't think it matters all that much - what matters is that we recognize that there are real people behind the numbers - so let's not turn people off by blowing things out of proportion.

[WestViking]

The measure of poverty (and riches) includes a lot of intangibles that cannot be measured. What is the value of good health, a warm and loving family, long-held solid friendships, and a spouse with whom you have shared and survived both catastrophe and triumphs? How do you measure the satisfaction of an ethical and moral person who does what is right because it is right. Measuring 'poor' and 'poverty' based solely on income levels and ownership of 'stuff' is a bit ridiculous. The notion that all 'poor' people lack dignity, pride and respect is not accurate.

I discovered long ago that not everyone wants to climb the ladder of success. For one think, they may not measure success in the same way that I do or the way that mainstream society does. We like to wax eloquent about the beauty of liberty and freedoms, and part of that revered liberty to live as you wish in accordance with measures and goals that matter to you. It is not relevant what the sociology department at the university or the experts in some think tank believe, they are not going to live your life for you.

My quarrel with 'poverty studies' is that they dehumanize the people they study. "Poor' people become cyphers without personalities, principles, standards and values. The only people who can accurately study the poor are people who we suspect to be poor. I submit that if those we think are living in poverty ever did a self-study, mainstream society might find itself questioning its value system, not theirs.

[geoffrey]

Wow, good post West Viking.

[margrace]

Our reeve does the income taxe for seniors in our area through a program of the Tax people. She was really shocked at the number of people living on $12,000 a year in our area.

A single senior living in a house with no mortgage would be able to get by on $12K/year. They would likely have to go without many things (such as cable tv) which most other people have but they would not be destitute.

Oh and you know by experience aye. How long have you lived on $12,000 a year. These seniors probably do own their own homes outright but they also live in the country where there is no public transportation.

There's one big expense I'll guarantee you haven't thought of. These people lived in this area all their lives and worked here all their lives, they were farmers when farming was thought of as an honourable life style.

[margrace]

The measure of poverty (and riches) includes a lot of intangibles that cannot be measured. What is the value of good health, a warm and loving family, long-held solid friendships, and a spouse with whom you have shared and survived both catastrophe and triumphs? How do you measure the satisfaction of an ethical and moral person who does what is right because it is right. Measuring 'poor' and 'poverty' based solely on income levels and ownership of 'stuff' is a bit ridiculous. The notion that all 'poor' people lack dignity, pride and respect is not accurate.

I discovered long ago that not everyone wants to climb the ladder of success. For one think, they may not measure success in the same way that I do or the way that mainstream society does. We like to wax eloquent about the beauty of liberty and freedoms, and part of that revered liberty to live as you wish in accordance with measures and goals that matter to you. It is not relevant what the sociology department at the university or the experts in some think tank believe, they are not going to live your life for you.

My quarrel with 'poverty studies' is that they dehumanize the people they study. "Poor' people become cyphers without personalities, principles, standards and values. The only people who can accurately study the poor are people who we suspect to be poor. I submit that if those we think are living in poverty ever did a self-study, mainstream society might find itself questioning its value system, not theirs.

very good West Viking. My argument with this is the people on here who would take away senior benefits and the ones who would force people living in the Maritimes to move to Alberta.

[ScottSA]

The measure of poverty (and riches) includes a lot of intangibles that cannot be measured. What is the value of good health, a warm and loving family, long-held solid friendships, and a spouse with whom you have shared and survived both catastrophe and triumphs? How do you measure the satisfaction of an ethical and moral person who does what is right because it is right. Measuring 'poor' and 'poverty' based solely on income levels and ownership of 'stuff' is a bit ridiculous. The notion that all 'poor' people lack dignity, pride and respect is not accurate.

I discovered long ago that not everyone wants to climb the ladder of success. For one think, they may not measure success in the same way that I do or the way that mainstream society does. We like to wax eloquent about the beauty of liberty and freedoms, and part of that revered liberty to live as you wish in accordance with measures and goals that matter to you. It is not relevant what the sociology department at the university or the experts in some think tank believe, they are not going to live your life for you.

My quarrel with 'poverty studies' is that they dehumanize the people they study. "Poor' people become cyphers without personalities, principles, standards and values. The only people who can accurately study the poor are people who we suspect to be poor. I submit that if those we think are living in poverty ever did a self-study, mainstream society might find itself questioning its value system, not theirs.

very good West Viking. My argument with this is the people on here who would take away senior benefits and the ones who would force people living in the Maritimes to move to Alberta.

No one is "forced" to live anywhere. If you want to job and there are no jobs in the Maritimes, then you move. If you want to sit on pogey and complaint that no one is giving you a job, then have at 'er. How you can couch this simple economic reality in terms of coercion is beyond me.

[margrace]

The measure of poverty (and riches) includes a lot of intangibles that cannot be measured. What is the value of good health, a warm and loving family, long-held solid friendships, and a spouse with whom you have shared and survived both catastrophe and triumphs? How do you measure the satisfaction of an ethical and moral person who does what is right because it is right. Measuring 'poor' and 'poverty' based solely on income levels and ownership of 'stuff' is a bit ridiculous. The notion that all 'poor' people lack dignity, pride and respect is not accurate.

I discovered long ago that not everyone wants to climb the ladder of success. For one think, they may not measure success in the same way that I do or the way that mainstream society does. We like to wax eloquent about the beauty of liberty and freedoms, and part of that revered liberty to live as you wish in accordance with measures and goals that matter to you. It is not relevant what the sociology department at the university or the experts in some think tank believe, they are not going to live your life for you.

My quarrel with 'poverty studies' is that they dehumanize the people they study. "Poor' people become cyphers without personalities, principles, standards and values. The only people who can accurately study the poor are people who we suspect to be poor. I submit that if those we think are living in poverty ever did a self-study, mainstream society might find itself questioning its value system, not theirs.

very good West Viking. My argument with this is the people on here who would take away senior benefits and the ones who would force people living in the Maritimes to move to Alberta.

No one is "forced" to live anywhere. If you want to job and there are no jobs in the Maritimes, then you move. If you want to sit on pogey and complaint that no one is giving you a job, then have at 'er. How you can couch this simple economic reality in terms of coercion is beyond me.

So here I am, I have my house paid for, but I must move to Alberta. If i can sell my house then I wonlt be able to even make a down payment on a house in Alberta. Besides housing is at a premium there, so there's no guarantee that I would have anything to live in. I live in Ontario but my son lives in BC and works in the wonderful oil fields of Alberta. When his wife fell ill and needed him there was nothying he could do for her because he wa 10 hours away and he had to live in one room.

Its always easy to tell other people how they should live but until you have walked that path you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

[Canuck E Stan]

Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

Seems to me that's why your son is working in the oil fields instead of working near his BC home.

[ScottSA]

So here I am, I have my house paid for, but I must move to Alberta. If i can sell my house then I wonlt be able to even make a down payment on a house in Alberta. Besides housing is at a premium there, so there's no guarantee that I would have anything to live in. I live in Ontario but my son lives in BC and works in the wonderful oil fields of Alberta. When his wife fell ill and needed him there was nothying he could do for her because he wa 10 hours away and he had to live in one room.

Its always easy to tell other people how they should live but until you have walked that path you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

I'm not telling you how to live at all. I couldn't care less where you live. I'm just asking why you think anyone else should care where you live either, or fund your choices? If you want to live in poverty in a paid for house instead of going somewhere else to get a job, fill yer boots. If your son feels he would be better placed staying home with his wife instead of working, then so be it.

If you're arguing that working on the rigs is hard, yeah I know it is...I actually spent two months working as a roughneck a couple years ago...hardest work I ever did, and not a worthwhile life for anyone. But it's not clear to me what your point is. Do you expect the rest of the country to pay for your wishes? Do you expect the rest of the folks in the country to abolish the rigs because they're hard and the work is in the boonies? What's your point?

[Drea]

Of course her son could not move his family to be with him. There is no housing (hence he is in one room).

All the power to him -- hope he makes fistfulls of Alberta money and ships it off to his wife in BC.

Many many families are split up like Margrace and her son. If my hubby was younger I'd send him to the oil patch too!

[margrace]

So here I am, I have my house paid for, but I must move to Alberta. If i can sell my house then I wonlt be able to even make a down payment on a house in Alberta. Besides housing is at a premium there, so there's no guarantee that I would have anything to live in. I live in Ontario but my son lives in BC and works in the wonderful oil fields of Alberta. When his wife fell ill and needed him there was nothying he could do for her because he wa 10 hours away and he had to live in one room.

Its always easy to tell other people how they should live but until you have walked that path you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

I'm not telling you how to live at all. I couldn't care less where you live. I'm just asking why you think anyone else should care where you live either, or fund your choices? If you want to live in poverty in a paid for house instead of going somewhere else to get a job, fill yer boots. If your son feels he would be better placed staying home with his wife instead of working, then so be it.

If you're arguing that working on the rigs is hard, yeah I know it is...I actually spent two months working as a roughneck a couple years ago...hardest work I ever did, and not a worthwhile life for anyone. But it's not clear to me what your point is. Do you expect the rest of the country to pay for your wishes? Do you expect the rest of the folks in the country to abolish the rigs because they're hard and the work is in the boonies? What's your point?

WEll junior if you don't get my point you don't read very well. You have no idea what you are talking about, you haven't live 70 odd years as I have, just wait. Your turn will come and I hope it is not as bad as the world I see you and your ilk creating.

[ScottSA]

So here I am, I have my house paid for, but I must move to Alberta. If i can sell my house then I wonlt be able to even make a down payment on a house in Alberta. Besides housing is at a premium there, so there's no guarantee that I would have anything to live in. I live in Ontario but my son lives in BC and works in the wonderful oil fields of Alberta. When his wife fell ill and needed him there was nothying he could do for her because he wa 10 hours away and he had to live in one room.

Its always easy to tell other people how they should live but until you have walked that path you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

I'm not telling you how to live at all. I couldn't care less where you live. I'm just asking why you think anyone else should care where you live either, or fund your choices? If you want to live in poverty in a paid for house instead of going somewhere else to get a job, fill yer boots. If your son feels he would be better placed staying home with his wife instead of working, then so be it.

If you're arguing that working on the rigs is hard, yeah I know it is...I actually spent two months working as a roughneck a couple years ago...hardest work I ever did, and not a worthwhile life for anyone. But it's not clear to me what your point is. Do you expect the rest of the country to pay for your wishes? Do you expect the rest of the folks in the country to abolish the rigs because they're hard and the work is in the boonies? What's your point?

WEll junior if you don't get my point you don't read very well. You have no idea what you are talking about, you haven't live 70 odd years as I have, just wait. Your turn will come and I hope it is not as bad as the world I see you and your ilk creating.

Well, at 48 I'm not all that junior to you, but I still don't know what your point is.

[geoffrey]

Its always easy to tell other people how they should live but until you have walked that path you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

None of us are telling anyone how to live. We are simply fed up with supporting poor life choices. People can do whatever they want, but they should have to deal with the full consequences of their actions, instead of asking for a handout.

[bush_cheney2004]

WEll junior if you don't get my point you don't read very well. You have no idea what you are talking about, you haven't live 70 odd years as I have, just wait. Your turn will come and I hope it is not as bad as the world I see you and your ilk creating.

Hmmm...I could be wrong, but methinks childhood poverty is a much bigger problem in Canada compared to the "elderly" and the demands they place on government resources.

[margrace]

Its always easy to tell other people how they should live but until you have walked that path you haven't any idea what you are talking about. Oh I forgot you make big wages woopdedo

None of us are telling anyone how to live. We are simply fed up with supporting poor life choices. People can do whatever they want, but they should have to deal with the full consequences of their actions, instead of asking for a handout.

Oh yes I know what they saying is "We have taken Away the poor's right to starve" That is what you object to.

[Moxie]

WEll junior if you don't get my point you don't read very well. You have no idea what you are talking about, you haven't live 70 odd years as I have, just wait. Your turn will come and I hope it is not as bad as the world I see you and your ilk creating.

Hmmm...I could be wrong, but methinks childhood poverty is a much bigger problem in Canada compared to the "elderly" and the demands they place on government resources.

And your assertion is based on what exactly?

Here's a few facts: A women with two children gets 2100 a month (combined baby bonus and GST with welfare) in NS. She can receive this benefit until she can't pop out more illigitimate babies, roughly 18 plus years per child.

A male on Disability gets 550 or what ever his rent is not exceeding 700 a month from Canada Pension and another 150 is thrown in by the province of NS. So a disabled male is suppose to exist on maximum 850 a month. Now that is poverty. A person pays into a pension plan and one gets knocked up by choice and look who benifits? Yep the unwed mother, if there is child poverty place the blame squarely on the female's shoulders bingo and booze is not why they receive welfare. It's for the CHILDREN not their personal pleasure or addictions.

On to our seniors, yes many are living in object poverty. These are the brave souls that worked, in some cases 60 years, to pay for all the social programs that exists today and we expect them to live on a combined paultry sum of less than a 1000 dollars a month. The socialist in this country deem women who have unprotected sex and give birth to multiple babies a priority over those who PAID into a pension plan. How's that for a screwed up idiology?

We are punishing the very people who paid for our current social programs, why we reward females hoes who have no problem giving birth to multiple children with different fathers. This country is on the road to complete lack of morals or ethos and I blame the Modern Liberals for their lack of family values. So It's okay to get knocked up and live the life of riley yet we become tight fisted misers towards those who actually gave back to society. The welfare children of today will be the mothers of the welfare children of our future. I guess like Immigrant the left have ensured another guarrenteed voting block, like the immigrants the left like to exploit those who feel victimized. I suppose a female hoe would feel victimized if their welfare worker can't get automatic debit in place before the birth of their third or fourth child. Oh alas what burden for these poor females have to bare.

[Renegade]

On to our seniors, yes many are living in object poverty. These are the brave souls that worked, in some cases 60 years, to pay for all the social programs that exists today and we expect them to live on a combined paultry sum of less than a 1000 dollars a month.

I'm having difficulty understaning how a senior who have worked, in some cases 60 years, is living on less than $1000/month. CPP was enacted in 1966, so presumaby they have 40+ years of contribution to CPP, in addition to OAS and GIS. Please explain.